Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Blocks 3d-Party Browsers In Windows RT, Says Mozilla Counsel
nk497 writes "Mozilla has accused Microsoft of trying to go back to the 'digital dark ages' by limiting rival browsers in the ARM version of Windows 8. Third-party browsers won't work in the desktop mode, and Metro style browsers will be limited in what APIs they can use, said Mozilla general counsel Harvey Anderson, forcing users to move to IE instead. Mozilla said it was the first step toward a new platform lock-in that 'restricts user choice, reduces competition and chills innovation,' and pointed out that such browser control was exactly what upset EU and U.S. regulators about IE in the first place. Anderson called on Microsoft to 'reject the temptation to pursue a closed path,' adding 'the world doesn't need another closed proprietary environment.'"
You know that there already exists a mobile version of Firefox that isn't just the desktop browser recompiled for ARM, right?
translation: "it's not your computer, it's Microsoft's, and they should decide what you run on it."
Whooo, party in 3d! Always knew Microsoft had a stick up their ass, but now they're trying to limit us to two-dimensional parties.
It's the Firefox prototype anyway.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Android devices are not infested with malware, and they do in fact run alternate browsers. Windows programs do not run on them for technical reasons not as a method to lockdown the platform.
Firefox actually already has a version for android on arm called Fennec and it is lighter than the desktop version. I am sure IE will not be limited to some crippled set of APIs, and you know that.
You are wrong on many facts and in general appear to be a shill.
You can install a different OS on a Chromebook. You're specifically allowed to do this, and then you can run Firefox or whatever you want (as long as it runs on Linux, and even if it doesn't, thanks to Wine!)
MS has always been eyed critically for browser share since they've used their monopoly on the OS to force users onto their browser before. Neither Google nor Firefox has such a monopoly to leverage for that purpose.
The world collectively pissed itself in delight over Apple's closed proprietary environment. The clueless twits who threw their freedom away in exchange for "cool" have made similar environments acceptible in the minds of the clueless majority. You can't expect Microsoft to not take advantage of this. If anyone complains, they can just point at Apple and say "they started it!"
I actually RTFA because I thought it was odd and I was curious on how Windows could block browsers from a technical standpoint.
The article leads to a Mozilla blog from which in turns links to another blog on from Microsoft which in no ways mention limiting browsers on Windows for Arm. So this quite strong claim has no actual source.
"Strangely" enough, Internet Explorer, along with other MS apps, will still have access to those features.
That's only because they know what they are doing. They have a good enough track record in the security area to be trusted blindly by the population.
I mean, come on, they wrote the frigging OS itself !!!
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Microsoft isn't banning browser per se, it is limiting access to APIs that might be insecure and could be used for hacking the system.
Limiting access to APIs that Microsoft is using for themselves for their own browser is downright shady.
It has different APIs from standard Windows APIs and is much more secured.
How do we know it's secure at all? I trust Firefox and Google to provide far better security to me than some black box dumped by Microsoft and pumped by you shills.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
So you are claiming that Metro IE uses no non-public WinRT APIs? Do these APIs allow for a browser that is not based on the IE rendering engine?
And, as long as it's compatible with the WinRT APIs (same as Metro IE), there's absolutely no reason why it wouldn't run on Win 8 ARM devices.
According to TFA Microsoft is restricting the API available to third-party browsers and not allow them on the "classic" desktop.
Opera is not really a browser on iOS. It does many other things including doing all of the heavy lifting off the device on a proxy service Opera hosts. Sure it displays webpages, but it does not do this directly.
I don't find this lock-in too much of a hassle since it only affects the ARM version. I can easily opt to use the Intel version and nothing of value would be lost, in my opinion.
Until they "unify" their platform on the basis that "its been like that on the ARM for years"
Can I install a different browser on a Chromebook? Can I install a different browser in iOS? Heck, Apple bans ANY app that duplicates functionality that Apple provides.
Why is MS always being held to a double-standard that others aren't?
And has Slashdot ever been happy about Apple's little cryptographic lockdown party, Android devices with locked bootloaders, or particularly enthusiastic about paying more for a googlepliance than for the netbook of equivalent spec?
Each time those subjects come up, they generally catch flack from everyone except a few die-hard apologists(and half the apologies seem to be of the form 'but the chains are breakable, so it's ok!'). Now that Microsoft is stepping up and making it clear that 'Windows RT' is essentially the NT kernel/MS development tools equivalent of iOS, rather than a Windows port to ARM(in the sense that WinNT was about as similar as technology allowed across its supported architectures). Why wouldn't it be totally normal for them to get the same criticism for doing the same things?
Illogical argument?
Look, the purchaser owns the computer, not Microsoft. This doesn't change just because the computer fits in your pocket.
There is money to be made from selling an operating system, but there is a lot more to be made in controling an ecosystem of interrelated products. Apple showed this, and with the huge success (Both in market share and financially) they enjoyed, it's hardly surprising that Microsoft would want to follow the same path. The move to ARM allows them to get away with things they could never do on x86/64. Control of a popular browser gives them much power to advance other products (like Bing, or h264) or to hinder competitors (by introducing IE-exclusive features to break compatibility) - and it's only good business sense to take advantage of a rare chance to completly remake the industry in a way that favors themselves
I gather from comments the critical APIs relate to hardware acceleration, particually JIT compilation of scripts. A browser without them would suffer a serious performance penalty, and these tablets are made for low-power to begin with.
But that's true for the Windows desktop as well. We're talking about Windows RT here, which is the spiritual equivalent of iOS. How's that for a completely open Unix OS?
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Article is talking WinRT, which is the equivalent of iOS.
iOS IS restrictive, and Microsoft is aiming exactly for that. Actually... not exactly. From what I read, Microsoft will allow third party browsers, with third party HTML and JavaScript engines (something Apple does not allow.) The issue is in restricting some APIs required for JIT, and that will give third party browsers a heavy performance penalty.
So as much as I tend to be on Apple's side, this is nowhere near as restrictive as Apple's stance.
Apple still hasn't really allowed any 3rd party browsers into the app store.
Any browsers in the app store right now must use the same underlying engine as the system browser.
The only "exception" is Opera which does a little pre-processing on their servers if you trust the browser as a MITM.
There has been a build of Firefox for iOS for a long time, but completely unofficial. It will never be on iOS if Apple has any say.
That's why the Firefox Home (Sync) for iOS is just an app that displays your tabs/bookmarks from your other computers and opens them in Safari.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'